Top Law Schools

I am most likely going to be spending the first half of my summer at MTO. Now I need to decide to spend the second half of my summer. My understanding is that neither KHN nor Susman give return offers to summers (meaning you have to reapply after your clerkship). I don't have much of a preference on location and I'm not sure whether I want appellate work or would be okay with doing purely trial level work. I know both firms work you like crazy and pay well above market but I think the partnership prospects are much better at Susman? On the other hand I am interested in going into government and I think KHN is much better for that? Is there an experience, culture, prestige, hours, comp, or exit opportunity differential or does it just come down to location and whether I want appellate work in addition to trial work?

Making the same choice - would love to hear any responses!

I think this depends a lot on what you're looking for. Hours at both firms will be high (although KH may be even higher than Susman). Partnership is a live possibility at Susman if you can stick it out, few people make partner at KH and most people tend to leave after two or three years. Initial comp at KH is higher than Susman. Culturally they're very different places. I've heard that KH can be somewhat isolating—everybody sits in their offices and grinds. Susman works hard and plays hard and the people that work there tend to be a lot of fun. I think Susman has a more diverse docket (more kinds of and smaller cases) and there's more opportunity to get stand up experience as a result. My impression is that juniors get better experience at Susman, but I may not know enough about KH.

ETA: Another big question is how you feel about Houston vs. DC. Much lower COL in Houston and great food scene, but not a lot of natural beauty. DC has better arts (though to be clear, Houston is no slouch on this point).

Does the calculus change at all if you're looking at a non-Houston Susman office? (NY/LA/SEA)

I didn't know that Munger or Kellogg did splits, and frankly, I'm a bit surprised.

Probably comes down to your location preferences. I work in DC, and Susman is not 'prestigious' here. Many attorneys haven't even heard of them.

hdivschool wrote:I didn't know that Munger or Kellogg did splits, and frankly, I'm a bit surprised.

Probably comes down to your location preferences. I work in DC, and Susman is not 'prestigious' here. Many attorneys haven't even heard of them.

If you're in litigation with (or with aspirations towards) a national practice and you haven't even heard of Susman, you're doing it wrong, no matter whether you're working in DC or NY or Des Moines.

Anonymous User wrote:Does the calculus change at all if you're looking at a non-Houston Susman office? (NY/LA/SEA)

Anon from above—the associates at Susman's NYC office tend to be glitteringly elite (about one every year is coming off a SCOTUS clerkship), even more so than Susman's other offices. But if you're asking is there downside to not being in Houston, I think the answer is no. The only downside I could see is that given that those are smaller offices they probably don't have the same kind of staff support as the main office. This is probably a question worth asking to associates that you interviewed with.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Does the calculus change at all if you're looking at a non-Houston Susman office? (NY/LA/SEA)

Anon from above—the associates at Susman's NYC office tend to be glitteringly elite (about one every year is coming off a SCOTUS clerkship), even more so than Susman's other offices. But if you're asking is there downside to not being in Houston, I think the answer is no. The only downside I could see is that given that those are smaller offices they probably don't have the same kind of staff support as the main office. This is probably a question worth asking to associates that you interviewed with.

Which, in this context, means about a quarter of their incoming class is coming off a SCOTUS clerkship

Splurgles23 wrote:

hdivschool wrote:I didn't know that Munger or Kellogg did splits, and frankly, I'm a bit surprised.

Probably comes down to your location preferences. I work in DC, and Susman is not 'prestigious' here. Many attorneys haven't even heard of them.

If you're in litigation with (or with aspirations towards) a national practice and you haven't even heard of Susman, you're doing it wrong, no matter whether you're working in DC or NY or Des Moines.

I agree, but the fact of the matter is that they're a small firm with no DC presence. I'd venture to guess that many attorneys in Houston haven't heard of Kellogg.

hdivschool wrote:

Splurgles23 wrote:

hdivschool wrote:I didn't know that Munger or Kellogg did splits, and frankly, I'm a bit surprised.

Probably comes down to your location preferences. I work in DC, and Susman is not 'prestigious' here. Many attorneys haven't even heard of them.

If you're in litigation with (or with aspirations towards) a national practice and you haven't even heard of Susman, you're doing it wrong, no matter whether you're working in DC or NY or Des Moines.

I agree, but the fact of the matter is that they're a small firm with no DC presence. I'd venture to guess that many attorneys in Houston haven't heard of Kellogg.

Everyone in Houston doing with a national litigation practice knows Kellogg. And I think the same is true in DC for Susman. I don't really buy that Susman is not considered prestigious in DC. Sure, it's not W&C/GDC/WH/Cov—it isn't a local DC player—but it's one of a handful of litigation boutiques with a truly national litigation practice.

Anonymous User wrote:

hdivschool wrote:

Splurgles23 wrote:

hdivschool wrote:I didn't know that Munger or Kellogg did splits, and frankly, I'm a bit surprised.

Probably comes down to your location preferences. I work in DC, and Susman is not 'prestigious' here. Many attorneys haven't even heard of them.

If you're in litigation with (or with aspirations towards) a national practice and you haven't even heard of Susman, you're doing it wrong, no matter whether you're working in DC or NY or Des Moines.

I agree, but the fact of the matter is that they're a small firm with no DC presence. I'd venture to guess that many attorneys in Houston haven't heard of Kellogg.

Everyone in Houston doing with a national litigation practice knows Kellogg. And I think the same is true in DC for Susman. I don't really buy that Susman is not considered prestigious in DC. Sure, it's not W&C/GDC/WH/Cov—it isn't a local DC player—but it's one of a handful of litigation boutiques with a truly national litigation practice.

I'm not sure we disagree. I don't know what you mean by "national litigation practice," but in any event most attorneys do not have a "national litigation practice," and thus have no particular reason to be familiar with or impressed by boutiques that are not present in their market.

hdivschool wrote:I'm not sure we disagree. I don't know what you mean by "national litigation practice," but in any event most attorneys do not have a "national litigation practice," and thus have no particular reason to be familiar with or impressed by boutiques that are not present in their market.

To be clear, I'm not the anon above, but I think the quoted advice above is wrong. Elite litigation boutiques absolutely litigate nationally. It simply isn't true that, say, WH D.C. litigators only litigate cases in D.C. In fact, in BigLaw, litigators who only litigate in their local jurisdiction are pretty rare.

I also think it matters whether you are interested in the stuff KH is very good at (appellate, telecom, patent) or the stuff SG is very good at (trials, commercial lit, some P-side work). The people I know from law school who worked at KH were very serious and cerebral, those who worked at SG were very sharp and had strong trial lawyer vibes.

Just to build on this discussion, what is the portability of SG? I have a spouse who might need to move to a market without an SG office in a few years (think SF, SD, DC etc). If my intent would be to remain in Biglaw after the move, would 2-3 years at SG be more useful than a larger firm? I would think that the early experience at SG would be a far better experience, but does it depend on whether one ends up doing a decent amount of defense-side work vs. plaintiff-side in those 2-3 years? Will larger Biglaw firms in other markets be open to laterals from SG, or does one need to be prepared to target places that litigate both sides like QE, BSF, etc?

Anonymous User wrote:Just to build on this discussion, what is the portability of SG? I have a spouse who might need to move to a market without an SG office in a few years (think SF, SD, DC etc). If my intent would be to remain in Biglaw after the move, would 2-3 years at SG be more useful than a larger firm? I would think that the early experience at SG would be a far better experience, but does it depend on whether one ends up doing a decent amount of defense-side work vs. plaintiff-side in those 2-3 years? Will larger Biglaw firms in other markets be open to laterals from SG, or does one need to be prepared to target places that litigate both sides like QE, BSF, etc?

SG associates don't have any trouble lateralling. Especially because they have significantly better experience than equivalent-year Biglaw associates. I've never heard of SG's straddling the plaintiff/defense divide being an issue. I suppose you can imagine an issue where a prior plaintiff's side suit might result in a deal-breaker conflict with a new firm, but I doubt that's a frequent issue. If you've done more plaintiff's side work you might need to explain how it helps you when working the defense side, but that's not a hard argument to make.

Bump!